Indiana Intellectual Property Law News
Plaintiffs Inpres, Inc. and TWM IP LLC have filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Alltrista Plastics LLC concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,585,460 (the “‘460 Patent”). The plaintiffs allege that the defendant has infringed upon the ‘460 Patent, which relates to a screw-based dispenser system with a locking elevator mechanism, and is seeking relief, including damages and an injunction. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant’s products unlawfully replicate the patented technology and that the infringement has been willful.
The accused patent, titled “Screw-Based Dispenser Having Locking Elevator and Elevator Retention Mechanism,” was issued on March 7, 2017. It specifically addresses issues with propel/repel dispensers used for consumer products such as lip balms and creams, particularly solving a problem known as “up-elevator,” where the elevator mechanism in the dispenser advances too soon.
According to the Complaint, Alltrista, operating as Jarden Plastics in 2018, purchased a large quantity of lip balm dispensers from Inpres, which incorporated the patented elevator retention mechanism. Alltrista was provided detailed specifications and engineering drawings by Inpres under confidentiality agreements, highlighting the proprietary nature of the materials. However, after returning most of the purchased units, Alltrista allegedly used these specifications to develop its own dispensers incorporating the patented technology.
The lawsuit asserts that Alltrista’s products infringe upon Claim 1 of the ‘460 Patent, which includes a screw-based dispenser with a cylindrical outer casing, a threaded screw, a movable elevator, and a locking mechanism with a convex protrusion and a concave depression. According to the plaintiffs, Alltrista’s dispensers meet all these specifications.
According to the Indiana Secretary of State, Defendant Alltrista’s principal office is in Greer, SC, and its “member” is Tallistar Corporation, which is also in Greer, SC. However, Alltrista was sued in Indiana because it is an Indiana LLC formed in 1996, whose incorporator had an address in Muncie, Indiana. The plaintiffs are in Illinois, so filing suit in Indiana instead of South Carolina may save its attorney’s travel expenses.
In their filing, the plaintiffs are requesting a jury trial and several forms of relief. These include a judgment affirming the validity of the ‘460 Patent and declaring that Alltrista’s products infringe upon the patent. They are seeking damages of lost profits or a reasonable royalty, along with pre- or post-judgment interest, costs, and other legal expenses. The plaintiffs also ask the court to decide that the infringement was intentional and to grant three times the usual damages. In addition, they are asking for temporary and permanent injunctions to stop the infringement from continuing.
The case has been assigned to Judge James R. Sweeney II and Magistrate Judge M. Kendra Klump in the U.S. District Court of Southern Indiana Case No. 1:25-cv-131.